Do You Need An IPRS Licence For Your App Or Digital Platform?

What Is IPRS and Why Does It Matter for Digital Businesses?

The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) is a copyright society registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It administers and collects royalties on behalf of authors, composers, and music publishers for the public communication of musical and literary works. Under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957, ‘communication to the public’ includes any transmission of a work, by wire or wireless diffusion, broadcast, cable, satellite, or any other means, that makes the work accessible to the public. Digital platforms, apps, and online services that incorporate music into their product therefore fall squarely within this definition.

For any business operating a mobile application, gaming platform, OTT service, or other digital product that uses music accessible to users in India, the question of whether an IPRS licence is required is not theoretical. It is a live compliance question with real commercial and legal consequences.

▸ IPRS is the registered copyright society administering rights in musical works and underlying literary works in India. It is distinct from PPL India, which administers sound recording rights within its repertoire. Both may be relevant depending on the nature of the music usage.

When Does an App or Digital Platform Trigger IPRS Licensing?

The threshold question is whether the use of music within a digital product constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ or a ‘broadcast’ as defined under the Copyright Act, 1957. The following uses will generally attract IPRS’s mandate:

• A mobile gaming application that plays background music, ambient sound, or theme songs while users interact with the game.
• A fitness or wellness app that plays music during workouts, meditation sessions, or guided exercises.
• An OTT or music streaming platform that transmits or makes available songs, whether on an interactive (on-demand) or non-interactive (scheduled/background) basis.
• A social media or short-video platform that allows users to add or interact with licensed music tracks.
• A digital radio or podcast platform that incorporates musical works within its programming.

The common thread is that the music is being made available to members of the public through the digital product whether or not the user has direct control over what plays.

The Distinction Between IPRS and PPL India

A critical point for digital businesses is that music typically comprises two distinct layers of rights:

• the underlying musical and literary work (melody and lyrics), administered in India by IPRS; and
• the sound recording of that work, administered in India by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL India).

A licence from one does not ordinarily substitute substitute for the other. Businesses should therefore ensure that both the underlying musical and literary works and the corresponding sound recordings have been appropriately licensed, unless a single licence expressly covers both layers of rights. The Bombay High Court in Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. (2019)¹ and the Calcutta High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited & Anr. (2024)² have both affirmed this separation, holding that rights in the sound recording and rights in the underlying musical/literary work are independent and must be separately cleared.

IPRS Tariff Categories for Digital Platforms: INTB vs. INTR

Under its current licensing framework, IPRS broadly classifies digital usage into two primary tariff categories relevant to apps and platforms. These are licensing classifications adopted by IPRS for royalty administration and are not statutory categories under the Copyright Act, 1957.:

INTB: Non-Interactive Broadcast/Streaming

This category covers digital transmissions where the user does not control which music plays, when it plays, or in what sequence. A mobile game where background music plays automatically, ambient music in a meditation app, or music that plays as part of a curated channel without user selection would typically fall under INTB. The user experience is passive; music is not on-demand.

INTR: Interactive Streaming

This category covers digital services where users can select, play, pause, skip, or otherwise control specific tracks on demand. Music streaming apps, on-demand platforms, and apps that allow users to curate personalised playlists would typically fall here. Royalties under INTR tend to be higher than INTB, reflecting the greater degree of user control and commercial exploitation.

Correct categorisation matters enormously, misclassification can expose a business to retrospective royalty demands and enforcement action. The boundary between interactive and non-interactive use is not always self-evident; a user’s ability to skip tracks, replay a song, or access a personalised queue can shift usage from one category to the other with significant tariff consequences. Whether a particular product design tips the usage from INTB into INTR is a question that turns on the specific technical and commercial features of the platform and getting it wrong is a common and costly mistake.

▸ IPRS tariff rates are periodically revised. IPRS also publishes tariff schemes for different categories of music usage, although the applicable licence terms and royalty payable depend on the nature of the service, the rights involved, and the commercial model. The applicable rate for your specific usage type, user base, and revenue model requires formal engagement with IPRS.

Can a Direct Licence from the Rights Holder Replace an IPRS Licence?

Yes, in certain circumstances. Under Indian copyright law, a copyright society’s mandate to collect royalties on behalf of a rights holder is subject to the rights entrusted to it by copyright owners. Section 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957 recognises that the powers of a copyright society are co-extensive with the authority granted to it by the owner. Where an owner has directly licensed a specific use to a specific licensee under a written agreement. that licence may, depending on its terms and the scope of IPRS’s authority, satisfy the licensing requirement for those works. Whether an additional IPRS licence is required depends on the ownership of the relevant rights, the scope of the direct licence, and the extent of IPRS’s mandate.

The practical consequence is significant: where a valid direct licence exists and is properly structured, it may reduce or eliminate the need for a separate IPRS licence for those works. However, this is not automatic and depends on the ownership of the rights, the terms of the licence, and the extent to which the relevant rights are administered by IPRS. However, this protection is only as strong as the licence itself. Many businesses assume their foreign or cross-border licence covers India when it does not, or discover, only when IPRS sends a notice, that their licence contains gaps that leave them exposed.

▸ Whether your existing licence is sufficient to rebut an IPRS claim in India is a legal question that depends on the specific wording of your agreement. If you have received an IPRS notice or are reviewing a licence ahead of an India product launch, we recommend seeking a formal legal opinion before taking any position.

What Happens If You Receive a Notice or C&D Letter from IPRS?

An IPRS notice is not a routine administrative communication, it is a formal assertion of copyright infringement that, if not handled correctly, can lead to injunctions, damages proceedings, and commercial disruption. Businesses that receive such notices often make one of two critical errors: they either ignore the notice entirely, or they immediately agree to pay the demanded royalty without any scrutiny of whether it is legally warranted or commercially proportionate.

Neither response is appropriate. The correct approach depends entirely on the nature of your existing rights in the works in question, the terms of any licence you hold, and IPRS’s legitimate mandate in relation to those specific works. These are questions that require careful legal analysis before any response is sent, because the first response you give to IPRS may define the negotiating and legal landscape for everything that follows.

▸ If you have received a notice from IPRS, do not respond, pay, or sign anything before taking legal advice. The strength of your position, and the cost of resolving the matter, will depend significantly on how the initial response is framed.

Music Licensing Compliance: Where Businesses Go Wrong

In our experience advising digital businesses on India-facing music licensing, there are several recurring points of exposure. A business may have licensed sound recordings but overlooked the underlying musical composition rights. A foreign company may assume its home-country licence covers India. A platform may have correctly identified the applicable IPRS tariff category but missed that its product features have since evolved in a way that shifts the classification. A direct licence may be in place but may lack the specific India territorial coverage or copyright society clause needed to displace IPRS’s mandate.

Any one of these gaps, individually or in combination, can result in infringement exposure, IPRS proceedings, or commercial liability at a late stage. A music compliance review before product launch, and again on any significant product update, is the most cost-effective form of protection available to a digital business operating in India.

Our Coverage on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7487365131094556673

Footnotes

^{1 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 849}

^{2 A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.